Peer Review Process
“New Medicine” relies on the peer review process to uphold the quality and validity of individual articles and our journal itself. We chose to conduct double blind review in all of the manuscripts, from two independent reviewers for each article. In double blind review, both the reviewer and the author are anonymous, which prevents reviewer bias based e.g. on author’s country of origin, previous controversial work, reputation, or personal relationships.
The review process itself is complex. Even before peer review process, some manuscripts that have been submitted are rejected by journal editors. If an article has been initially approved, it is sent to two independent reviewers. Both of the reviewers are from an academic institution that the author is not affiliated with. The review form contains a recommendation of the reviewer whether or not to publish the manuscript. The editorial board of “New Medicine” considers the peer reviewers’ reports and make the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript for publication. The author is informed of decision and reasons for it.
It must be underlined that only Articles undergo the peer review process. The commentaries section of our journal does not undergo peer review, as these commentaries are to be an additional, more open form of review, in which the reviewer, a specialist in the field, provides additional feedback on the article that has already been published.
The form that is used by our reviewers is to download here.
The list of reviewers that contributed to our journal in the previous year can be found here.
Please refer to our “Guide for contributors” for any further information.
Should you have any further questions regarding the peer review process, we encourage you to contact us directly.